If the Sandy Hook incident does not bring on changes due to the NRA NO

[martybegan]

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength."

A gun, any gun, makes the taking of a human life easy. True or false?

False, the decision to kill makes taking a human life easy...the weapon is distantly secondary to the will.

The gun is less personal then the knife, strangulation or a club. It is easy, a small amount of pressure by thei index finger and the deed is done.

All criminals were not criminals until they committed a criminal act. True or false?

True, which is why background checks will continue to fail.

If a license were required to obtain a firearm, and the penalty for furnishing a firearm to an unlicensed person was stiff - 10 years in state or federal prison seems appropriate. We won't know if such a law will be effective until we test it.

A person in possession of a gun acts differently than a person without a gun in his/her possession. True or false?

True, I am much more conscious of the unintended consequences of my actions.

You may, and you're more reasonable than many of the gun huggers who post here.

I don't flip off the asshole that cut me off in traffic or the guy who perceives ME as the asshole who cut him off in traffic.

Nor do I.

In my minds eye I can visualize a scenario where that situation could escalate...I never want to ever, ever use my firearm against another human being unless it is absolutely necessary to defend my life or the lives of others...

Therefore, I am more likely to keep any aggressive tendencies in check.

Yet many persons become more aggressive when armed.

Gun control means the total ban on firearms in civilian hands. True or false?

True, that's the end goal for most gun grabbers. They don't want a gun, and they don't trust you with that power.

False, many gun owners understand gun control does not mean the banning of guns from all civilians

The Second Amendment is sacrosanct. True or false?

True, it is as equally in sacrosanctness to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Wrong. There are limits on the provisions in each element of the First Amendment and others as well.

And all of this is deflection from my original post, that the "remedies" proposed have no chance of reducing mass shootings, which the gun grabbers claim is their goal.

Reducing gun violence is the goal: Murder, accident and suicide. I can only speak for myself and these are the things I would like to see:

I want to see everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a license to do so. Yes, it will include a background check and notification to local law enforcement; said license to be suspended or revoked for cause;

I want arms trafficers to go to prison for long terms with lifetime parole and license revocation;

I want to require gun owners to have liability insurance on each gun they own. And allow the insurance company to establish the liability of the types of weapons - let them determine the risk and hence the cost each year to own an AR 15 with large capacity magazines vis a vis a .22 Rimfire revolver.

So basically poor people will not be able to own guns.

If you are trying to ban guns be honest and try to ban them. Dont be a pussy and go for the end run.

 

[martybegan]

Are you plagued with crime in your home? Suffer a lot of home invasions? Get mugged in your bathroom often? I ask because you seem perfectly fine with anyone and everyone getting their hands on assault weapons and therefore extremely fearful that your access to them will be cut off.

I own a shot gun for personal defense and I have yet to actually need one, let alone any other weapon.

And, though I do not share your personal sense of aesthetics concerning guns (I grew up, you see), I don't think just believing them to be cool can justify riddling our streets withy them. Corvairs were "cool" but they were also unsafe at any speed and posed an unnecessary threat to public safety, just as assault weapons do.

So you think we should outlaw anything that you deem to be "unnecessary?" My, what a wonderful world we would live in if you ever became dictator.

unnecessary risk. The risk posed by assault weapons in the hands of hundreds of thousand without proper background checks for criminal pasts, mental illness and incompetence is completely unnecessary. The 2nd amendment is not a death sentence. Those who can't read it, particularly the clause that starts it off are using their peculiar attitude to perpetuate gun violence. And that's also an unnecessary risk. Public safety and the rights of the victims to live, grow and prosper are being repressed by the gun culture that cavalierly believes that guns are cool and make them big men so they should have them no matter what the consequences.

The risk numbers for dying via car accident are orders of magnitude higher than dying from an assault weapon. Its not about risk for people like you, its about fear. And for those in the government, its about control.

 

[Politico]

But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

That is a flat out lie. No point in anyone feeding this thread.

 

[Nosmo King]

Now people who like certain guns are immature?

The 2nd Amendment is justification enough, thank you. I'd have no problem with workable solutions that would actually work. The problem I have with banning semiautomatics is that they would not solve any problem. Mass murderers would simply choose different ways to be mass murderers.

I gotta say that your smug attitude is going a long way towards influencing my opinion. Too bad for you it's having an effect opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

I could not give a damn what you think about my attitude when you carry that 'guns are cool' attitude around. Guns are the tools that make mass shootings possible. They pose a real and present danger to the public safety and no wannabe Rambo has a say in keeping them around just because his warped view of culture says they are too cool to rid ourselves of.

You have yet to sugest anything that could possibly improve the situation. All your BS boils down to the demand everyone else should cater to your paranoia and make things easier for those who commit violent crime. YOU are the menace to public safety and your continued whining is getting really old. Feel fee to try to grow a pair.

I suggested stricter background checks and they were roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the gun show loophole and it was roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the straw man purchasers and that was roundly rejected. I suggested elimination of the sale, manufacture, distribution and importation of high capacity magazines and guess what? That was roundly rejected.

No gun enthusiast has put forth ANY solutions. That leads me to this unfortunate conclusion: gun enthusiasts do not see any problem with gun violence, perhaps even they welcome it. What else is anyone to think?

 

[Nosmo King]

So you think we should outlaw anything that you deem to be "unnecessary?" My, what a wonderful world we would live in if you ever became dictator.

unnecessary risk. The risk posed by assault weapons in the hands of hundreds of thousand without proper background checks for criminal pasts, mental illness and incompetence is completely unnecessary. The 2nd amendment is not a death sentence. Those who can't read it, particularly the clause that starts it off are using their peculiar attitude to perpetuate gun violence. And that's also an unnecessary risk. Public safety and the rights of the victims to live, grow and prosper are being repressed by the gun culture that cavalierly believes that guns are cool and make them big men so they should have them no matter what the consequences.

The risk numbers for dying via car accident are orders of magnitude higher than dying from an assault weapon. Its not about risk for people like you, its about fear. And for those in the government, its about control.

If cars were designed strictly to kill, you might have a point. But deflections like cars kill too are senseless given the non lethal utility of the car.

 

[martybegan]

unnecessary risk. The risk posed by assault weapons in the hands of hundreds of thousand without proper background checks for criminal pasts, mental illness and incompetence is completely unnecessary. The 2nd amendment is not a death sentence. Those who can't read it, particularly the clause that starts it off are using their peculiar attitude to perpetuate gun violence. And that's also an unnecessary risk. Public safety and the rights of the victims to live, grow and prosper are being repressed by the gun culture that cavalierly believes that guns are cool and make them big men so they should have them no matter what the consequences.

The risk numbers for dying via car accident are orders of magnitude higher than dying from an assault weapon. Its not about risk for people like you, its about fear. And for those in the government, its about control.

If cars were designed strictly to kill, you might have a point. But deflections like cars kill too are senseless given the non lethal utility of the car.

Why does it matter that cars are not "strictly for killing" Neither are guns. 99.9% of bullets fired are at targets, with the majority of the rest, when killing, hitting animals during hunting.

The fact is cars are far more deadly. If you are talking about risk then cars should be the primary thing you should be attempting to regulate, not semi automatic rifles.

Narrow it down to deaths by semi automatic rifle, and car fatalities are multiple orders of magnitude higher.

 

[Nosmo King]

The risk numbers for dying via car accident are orders of magnitude higher than dying from an assault weapon. Its not about risk for people like you, its about fear. And for those in the government, its about control.

If cars were designed strictly to kill, you might have a point. But deflections like cars kill too are senseless given the non lethal utility of the car.

Why does it matter that cars are not "strictly for killing" Neither are guns. 99.9% of bullets fired are at targets, with the majority of the rest, when killing, hitting animals during hunting.

The fact is cars are far more deadly. If you are talking about risk then cars should be the primary thing you should be attempting to regulate, not semi automatic rifles.

Narrow it down to deaths by semi automatic rifle, and car fatalities are multiple orders of magnitude higher.

And yet cars have been regulated and the safety of them has improved. Crash testing, seat belts, air bags have all contributed to making cars safer. Licenses for drivers and the suspension of those licenses when drivers fail to uphold their responsibility have further contributed to the safety of our roads.

But to suggest such safeguards should apply to an implement that is inherently dangerous gets roundly rejected by those who worship at the Altar of the Trigger or buy those whose motivation is to make a greater profit, in spite of the obvious risks.

 

[paulitician]

It's a New World Order now. The NWO Globalists rule the roost at this point. They've been disarming Citizens all over the World for many years. America is their last hurdle. I guess we'll see if the American People surrender their rights and sovereignty to them. Stay tuned.

 

[Papageorgio]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

What can we do to "assure" this "never" happens again?

Please enlighten us. I personally I think you are blowing smoke.

 

[martybegan]

If cars were designed strictly to kill, you might have a point. But deflections like cars kill too are senseless given the non lethal utility of the car.

Why does it matter that cars are not "strictly for killing" Neither are guns. 99.9% of bullets fired are at targets, with the majority of the rest, when killing, hitting animals during hunting.

The fact is cars are far more deadly. If you are talking about risk then cars should be the primary thing you should be attempting to regulate, not semi automatic rifles.

Narrow it down to deaths by semi automatic rifle, and car fatalities are multiple orders of magnitude higher.

And yet cars have been regulated and the safety of them has improved. Crash testing, seat belts, air bags have all contributed to making cars safer. Licenses for drivers and the suspension of those licenses when drivers fail to uphold their responsibility have further contributed to the safety of our roads.

But to suggest such safeguards should apply to an implement that is inherently dangerous gets roundly rejected by those who worship at the Altar of the Trigger or buy those whose motivation is to make a greater profit, in spite of the obvious risks.

Guns are already regulated. You have to pass a background check, you can't be a felon, for concealed carry you often need a permit. In some states you need a liscence.

What is not in existance are bans of certain types of cars because they look "scary." Cars are also not in the consitution. Your right to travel is in there, but the method is not. The consitution says the word "arms."


What you are after is not regulation, but banning. If you want that, repeal the 2nd amendment.

 

[007]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

Please... STFU... idiot.

 

[paulitician]

Reichstag Fire. Everyone really should read up on it.

 

[bripat9643]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

The interests of the manufacturers is identical to the interests of the owners, so that tactic isn't going to get any traction. The only reaction you will get from gun owners is a big yawn.

 

[bripat9643]

Reichstag Fire. Everyone really should read up on it.

A classic example of "never let a crisis go to waste."

Liberals have learned the Goebbels propaganda techniques quite well.

 

[PredFan]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

Moron.

The NRA has seen it's membership increase by 100k since the shooting in Connecticut.

Progressivism is a grave mental disorder.

 

[PredFan]

The NRA is nothing but a pork barreled lobbyist group that forces gun manufactures to keep bankrolling them. They are essentially a union on steroids, but the right wingers don't care.

With every post you proclaim your stupidity.

Keep it up.

 

[zeke]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

Moron.

The NRA has seen it's membership increase by 100k since the shooting in Connecticut.

Progressivism is a grave mental disorder.

100k. WOW. Wonder how many MILLIONs of Americans now support some type of assault weapons ban? Any idea? Is it more than or less than the number of new members to the NRA? If it is more Americans supporting bans, will you stfu about the new members of the NRA? Just curious.

 

[zeke]

Hey pred,. I read that the NRA recieves one dollar from every sale of guns or ammo from a legit gun shop that supports the NRA. Is that correct?

 

[martybegan]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

Moron.

The NRA has seen it's membership increase by 100k since the shooting in Connecticut.

Progressivism is a grave mental disorder.

100k. WOW. Wonder how many MILLIONs of Americans now support some type of assault weapons ban? Any idea? Is it more than or less than the number of new members to the NRA? If it is more Americans supporting bans, will you stfu about the new members of the NRA? Just curious.

Most of the support you get in polls is because people think of automatic weapons when you say "assault weapons" and dont realize the grabbers are actually trying to ban semi automatic rifles (and pistols, fucking Cuomo.). Even when using the term "semi automatic" people think automatic.

So your position relys on the lack of knowledge of the population, and of course, outright lies from your own side.

 

[zeke]

The NRA is such a bunch of assholes that after the Conn shootings, they couldn't even come out and tell responsible gun owners to lock your guns up, put trigger locks on them, if you have a young man with mental issues, remove your guns from your home. etc etc.,

The mother fuking NRA couldn't even offer ONE sensible idea to keep people safe from crazies with access to guns.

Their best idea. Arm everyone. And you don't think the NRA is working for the gun and ammo manufactuers? Why?